Thinking Seriously About Fascism

Tags

Amazon, America, anders, BBC, Blog, blog blog, Breivik, Civilisation, Crime, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, demolition man, demolition man analysis, demolition man plot, Eugenics, Facebook, fascism, fascist, letters, Multiculturalism, myspace, nordic state, politics, q, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Scandinavia, social media, stallone, tennis, Twitter, United States

The much bemoaned rise of the extreme right in Europe is actually very easy to explain. The mass-influx of Muslims, most of them unwilling to integrate into Western cultures, has provoked a completely natural reaction. People want control over their borders again. It’s as simple as that.

With that said, some people are – as the media claims – using the present crisis to promote darker or more radical visions for the future. I’m talking here specifically of fascists.

By using this word I do not refer to those mainstream conservative figures unjustly defamed as ‘fascists’ by the liberal press. I’m not talking about Bill O’Reilly or Nigel Farage. I mean real, honest, self-declared fascists; people who see virtue and worth in the fascist movements of the past.

We are compelled, even commanded, to oppose fascism outright. Fascism is evil, destructive, genocidal even. It seems a simple enough thing to argue against, right? In this article I want to argue that, contrary to popular assumption, it isn’t easy to condemn fascism in an honest or consistent way. It’s very difficult in fact. Put another way, I want to argue here that fascism is rising in Europe in part because some of its tenets are inherently appealing, not horrifying.

One of the better known of the European neo-fascists is Anders Behring Breivik, the narcissistic butcher of Utoeya and noted lover of moisturising cream. From his jail cell in Norway, the killer has recently expressed a desire to create a completely new nation; one he would grandly call ‘The Nordic State’.

This new country, Breivik says, will be distinguished from the Nordic States currently in existence in two important ways. Firstly, only 100% pure-blooded Nordic people will be allowed to live there. Secondly, the government of the new nation will be dedicated to the replenishment of the Nordic species, sponsoring a rise in controlled reproduction, as well as overseeing eugenic processes aimed at raising the standard of the Nordic race to new peaks of human excellence.

It is my duty, and yours too, to both dismiss and condemn this racist proposal out of hand. And I do so now, reader, conclusively. I do not want the Nordic State to come into existence. I find the concept bizarre, untenable, politically naive and contrary to the realities of the modern world.

Anders Behring Breivik

Many people would leave the matter there. But I don’t think that would be fully honest. While condemning the concept in theory, I cannot honestly say that The Nordic State would not be remarkable in practice.

I am not an egalitarian. I do not believe the populations of the world are exactly equal in character, intelligence, creativity and behaviour. I believe that palpable differences, rooted in biology, explain almost all of the mysteries pondered by conventional sociological analysis.

Through this politically incorrect lens, I must recognise that the Nordic State would surely become, in time, the envy of the world.

A 100% Nordic society would have one of the lowest crime rates on Earth. It would have one of the lowest infidelity and teenage pregnancy rates on Earth. It would be among the cleanest, safest and greenest countries in history. The average IQ of the Nordic State would be the highest in Europe, leaving other Nordic states languishing in inferiority. And if, as Anders Breivik proposes, eugenic breeding were authorised by the Nordic State’s government, then the state would over time become the source of the world’s most impressive technological and medical advances. It would also be militarily supreme, since the technological edge allowed by superior intelligence will make for the world’s most efficient and sophisticated army. And so on…

Saab Aero X – A Swedish-manufactured car

My point is – knowing all this, how can we sensibly and rationally object to Breivik’s fascism? Seeing as the programme he suggests would have such dazzling results, what counter-argument might we manufacture to dissuade rational people from endorsing it? This is a vital question; one we must try with everything we have to come up with an answer for.

One tried-and-tested objection we might make concerns the moral costs of bringing such a project to fruition. Despite the touted benefits of a Nordic State, the fact remains that every Nordic country (with the possible exception of Iceland) is solidly multiracial. A fifth of Swedes are of mixed-foreign or foreign descent. What would become of these people in Breivik’s utopia.

At his first trial in 2012, Breivik claimed to be a ‘cultural nationalist’. He denied being a racist or a fascist and sought to prove this by saying pleasant things about Israelis, Slavs and other non-Nordic populations. This is no longer the charade. At his most recent trial (deciding a lawsuit the killer brought against the Norwegian state), Breivik’s courtroom salute, formerly closed-fisted, was explicitly and undeniably Roman. Breivik now states that he self-identifies as a ‘National Socialist’, a ‘fascist’ and a Nordicist.

Benito Mussolini

From this we might reasonably infer that Breivik (and his supporters) would deal with non-Nordic people in Nordic countries in the same way the original National Socialists dealt with non-Germans; that is to say, starve then, expel them or kill them en masse. This is obviously unacceptable to any orthodox moral philosophy. None of the benefits brought by a Nordic State would be worth the murder of millions, with all the political and moral degeneration such an action would bring.

But what if a Nordic State could be achieved without violence? What if – as Breivik suggested in a more moderate mood – a section of scarcely populated Northern Scandinavia was sectioned off for Nordic People, and the rest of Scandinavia left as it is? What would our objection be to that?

I’m really not sure.

A fundamental question that must be answered is ‘Does a race have the right to be left to itself?’ And if not, why not? If the creation of a 100% Nordic society brings infinite benefits for those deemed appropriate enough to live in it, why is there any moral objection whatsoever?

Why is segregation a bad thing? Whose rights are infringed by it? The answer, perceived by the majority to be clean-cut, is actually very difficult to express. As a commenter on a Neo-Nazi website put it:

“Why are Whites (and only Whites) expected to share everything with other races? Why are Africans allowed to have Africa, but Whites are allowed to have nothing? There is no obligation for me to associate with people I don’t like. It’s my life and I’ll live it how I want. How is this racist?”

Though I dislike the general tone of this comment, I find it difficult to rebut his arguments conclusively. This blogger recognises the infeasibility of Muslim settlement in Europe. But then Muslims are not the only immigrants. What intrinsic right do Japanese people have to settle in Europe? What right do French people have to settle in Norway?

An ethnic Scandinavian

I have little doubt that ethnically ‘pure’ nations would be less prone to civil conflict than multiracial ones. For solidly scientific reasons, a person is considerably less likely to want to harm or victimise someone if he/she feels a kinship with them. We naturally sympathise with those in whose design we see elements of our own.

Ethnically pure nations would also have a more harmonious social structure than multiracial ones. Since the social classes would be bound together with biological and sentimental links, class warfare would be made considerably less appealing.

And even fascist government is difficult to condemn clearly. Contrary to popular belief, fascism is not necessarily synonymous with Hitlerism. In its purest and most original form, fascism was merely a radical form of corporatism; a simply, mutually beneficial union of government and industry.

So what can we do? Perhaps the best argument against fascism – and against political simplification of all kinds – is not a moral argument at all, but a practical one. Breivik’s fascist utopia might be a cleaner, greener and more productive society than those prevailing in Scandinavia today, but it wouldn’t be a pleasant society. It would be boring, colourless, drab and orderly beyond desirability.

There are already numerous parts of the developed world in which only one ethnic type reside. Most of Wales is Welsh, for example. Most of Ireland is Irish. Most of the Faroe Islands are Faroese. If these are perfect societies then they will stand scrutiny to that effect. But they don’t.

Have you ever seen the movie ‘Demolition Man’ starring Sylvester Stallone and Wesley Snipes? If you have, you will be aware of its strangely ingenious and philosophically stimulating plot. A cop of the present day is frozen cryogenically as a novel punishment for committing occupational manslaughter. When, after his term is served, he is released from the ‘cryo-penitentiary’ in 2032, he discovers that America has since achieved a perverse kind of techno-social perfection. In this future utopia, there is no littering, no crime, no swearing and no sexuality. It is a completely innocent society, where men and women of all ages are reduced emotionally to children. Everyone is happy, but only in a very shallow and naïve way. This new society, we  made to understand,  is nightmarish after a while. While it is safe and affluent beyond contemporary possibility, it is also fake, plastic and lacking in adrenaline. I have a feeling that Breivik’s Nordic State would eventually resemble this dystopia in many essential ways.

Imperfection is a natural and necessary part of human life and character. Without it we become machines – shiny and impressive, sure, but also soulless.

D, LDN

Advertisement

Dysgenics: A Beginner’s Guide.

Tags

Benefits Street, BNP, Breeding, Channel 4, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Dysgenics, Dysgenics definition, Dysgenics in Europe, dysgenics theory, Eugenics, Germans, Guide to Dysgenics, Idiocracy, IQ, Is Intelligence inherited?, Mike Judge, Miscegenation, Richard Lynn, Russell Brand, White people, Whites, Work

Do you ever lament that old songs seem to have more meaning than those produced today? Do you ever regard the success of books like the Da Vinci Code and the Hunger Games with sadness, comparing their lack of depth and nuance against the qualities of Brave New World, Sons and Lovers, and other bestsellers of yesteryear? Have you ever complained that the media in general is ‘dumbing down’ and that politics is becoming a reality TV competition?

What you may be describing are the effects of a phenomenon called ‘Dysgenics’, the process by which the human population (and thereby the culture) of a given area grows less intelligent with every new generation (needless to add, it is the opposite of Eugenics, a proposed system of discriminatory breeding intended to raise the general level of intelligence).

Out of all the burning scientific and sociological issues of our day, this is probably the most controversial, the one that people are really not supposed to talk about. This is because everyone is affected by dysgenics. It is not a process limited to a certain people, culture or nation. No-one can afford to laugh at it, shrug it off or deny it.

*I must emphasise before continuing that this is not an issue of ‘class’. Just because someone hasn’t gone to university doesn’t mean they are stupid. As a corollary, just because someone has been to university (even Oxford or Cambridge) doesn’t necessarily imply a superlative level of intelligence. In the latter case, people may just be privileged or have had superior or over-dedicated schooling.

When we talk about a new class of stupid people, we are talking about those who are incapable of philosophy and conviction, who shun the political and the cerebral in favour of the popular and facile, who cannot read and write, who are senselessly criminal and randomly aggressive, who have no sexual restraint and who fail to properly raise children.

These people, found in all classes and proliferating furiously up and down the United Kingdom, are something quite novel in British history. Of course, there has always been an idiot class, feckless and wild, unable to become part of the working majority, but they have never been so numerous or culturally influential as they are today.

The underclass is now a sub-culture, a sub-nation, with quirks of dress, language and even cuisine.

As to how the dysgenic process works, opinion is divided. Some blame the welfare state and its habit of paying people more welfare when they have large families, thereby encouraging the most incapable to have more children in order to live off said benefits. Frankly, I don’t think this is common enough to account for what is happening. I think it more likely that the dysgenic process has accelerated due to a longstanding imbalance of fertility and intelligence. In short, the smart people (those with jobs, political opinions and bookshelves) have smaller families than those who chew their toenails. Over time, that imbalance can completely transform the character of a nation, even one with such an illustrious history as ours.

While this is tolerable enough for now, one has to think about the future and how the nation will cope as the ratio leans ever more toward the negative.

Something particularly threatened by this process, I believe, is human liberty. After all, what becomes of a society when people no longer understand politics enough to  partake in it? What kind of government will assemble itself in that situation, and what extra powers will it take on?

The voter turn-out for national elections is frighteningly low in the West, frequently clocking in at less than 50%, and sinking as low as 20% in local contests.

You can be sure that the elite secretly approves of this. The progeny of Eton don’t care if the rest of the country begins to moan and dribble. On the contrary, popular degeneration only serves to elevate them to an even greater standing.

Indeed, this is partly why the class system exists at all. It was and is designed to segregate people according to ability, never having them intermix or interbreed with one another.

In reality, the growth of illiteracy and criminality affects all classes equally. You will have met people so afflicted on many occasions, I’m sure, no matter where you live or what company you aspire to keep.

The last time I wrote about dysgenics on this blog, I was accused of being fascistic. I suppose that’s inevitable. Hitler has forever tarnished the discussion of genetics with the stamp of extremism. Be that as it may, this is an important conversation that must be held sooner or later.

D, LDN.

Dyzgenicz: Wat Is Britain Loosing?

Tags

Africa, BBC, Boris Johnson, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, Dysgenics, Eugenics, Flynn Effect, Gordon Gekko, Idiocracy, Intelligence quotient, Johnson, Margaret Thatcher, Mayor, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Wall Street

Have you ever seen the film ‘Idiocracy’? I haven’t, but I’m well-acquainted with its subject.

From what I’ve read about it, the plot of the film takes place in a (we hope) distant dystopian future, after the effects of the downward selection currently in progress has matured and taken over American society. To put the idea simply, because (in the film, as in reality) less intelligent people have reproduced more than the intelligent, society has become an ‘Idiocracy’, dominated by feral dullards, up to and including the President.

The scientific name for this process is ‘Dysgenics’, which (as any amateur etymologist will see) is the counterprocess to ‘Eugenics’. Dysgenics is the trend by which the intelligent fail to reproduce in sufficient numbers, or else are saturated by the greater fertility of the stupid.

But why am I mentioning this here?

Well, a few months ago, Boris Johnson, the mop-headed Mayor of my city, attracted a great deal of controversy by suggesting that some people are too stupid to get ahead in life.

In a speech to the Margaret Thatcher Centre, Johnson speculated that ‘natural differences’ in cognitive ability mean that economic equality is a dangerous pipe dream not to be pursued by politicians.

As you would expect, the Guardian and other liberal papers quickly poured aggressive scorn on this idea, with Johnson even being compared to Gordon Gekko, the ruthless elitist from the movie ‘Wall Street’.

Johnson is of course correct to say that differences in ability exist and that these differences will usually oppose any attempt to impose ‘equality’. Where he is wrong is to think that politicians can ever get away with pointing this out.

Dysgenics is an open secret among the educated. Prospect magazine ran a terrifying story last year which claimed that (in contravention of the Flynn Effect) the average British IQ was going down.

As strange as this would seem to science, it would surprise very few people who converse with contemporary youth. Public literacy (a good test of intelligence) has never been in more dire straits, and little is being done to address the problem. In the title of this post, I have used what has fast become the standard social-network spelling of ‘losing’. The word ‘lose’ is now ‘loose’, whereas ‘loose’ is now ‘lose’ (or sometimes even ‘looce’). A similar mutation has afflicted the word ‘ridiculous’, which is almost always now spelt ‘rediculous’.

This is isn’t a small concern. When language degrades, cultures usually aren’t far behind.

Boris Johnson deserves credit for his bravery in speaking up on this, but his candor will likely go wasted on a public too afraid of dangerous ideas, and ignorant of the costs of ignoring them.

D, LDN.

Dysgenics, Onesies, and Kids getting Dumber.

Tags

Barack Obama, Defend the modern world, Dysgenics, Eugenics, Infant bodysuit, Jonestown, Justin Bieber, Onesie, Scotland, YouTube

It seems that the craze for adult babygrows – rebranded as ‘onesies’ –  has now stalled and will soon enter a period of red-faced decline. Those who fell victim to the ludicrous fad can now begin the work of stitching up the damage to their social credibility, probably by invoking the cards of ‘irony’, humour, or (if these fail) intoxication. Meanwhile, those of us who always were amazed at the herd insanity of such people, can glow with righteous satisfaction.

But why am I mentioning it here, on a political blog? Well, it’s known that fashion, like any other element of popular ‘culture’ acts as a kind of shadow government. It controls and governs the masses beneath the consent of electoral politics. More importantly (and worryingly) it also provides a barometer of national intelligence and mood. 

The craze for Onesies may be lessening, but much still has to be explained as to how such a strange trend could emerge in the first place. Who is to blame? What went wrong?

If anyone ever doubts the fallibility of the human mind to acquiesce in the most degrading kinds of behaviour, I point them in the direction of the harrowing documentary. Jonestown: The Life and Death of People’s Temple.

The story of Jonestown is well known. So well known that the (pretty insensitive) phrase “Don’t drink the kool-aid” has become common parlance. The phrase is designed to caution those who seem to be blindly following a herd, especially when that herd is itself blindly following a fallible authority. Whether or not it is unkind to use it, given the tragic nature of its source material, is irrelevant. What it gets right is more important than what it gets wrong.

The insinuation behind the phrase is that the lesson of Jonestown is not limited to freakish cults, but can be justly applied in other more everyday contexts.

And as the macro can be applied to the micro, so can the micro be applied to the macro. The fact that Onesies are so ridiculous, ugly and embarrassing for those forced by their weak minds to don them, coupled with the wildfire success of the fad itself, creates genuine cause for concern.

Where can fads go after adult babygrows? Perhaps some devious social scientist could deliberately create a fad for not wearing trousers. If it was endorsed by Justin Bieber, there’s no reason to think we wouldn’t see it become the norm….for a few weeks at least.

And then after the hypnosis of peer-pressure fell away, the affected consumers could look into mirrors, horrified at what they, and the human average is reduced to.

But it isn’t just fashion. This herd-madness is ruling the era. It elected President Obama. It motivates those vague, nihilistic protests against Capitalism which blight London streets every weekend. It is part of a pattern of general human degeneration known scientifically as ‘Dysgenics’. People are not just becoming more easy to round up and control. They are also becoming thicker.

Anyone over 25 who uses YouTube and is foolish enough to get into a debate with another user will immediately feel their generational distance from contemporary teenagers. ‘Text-speak’ is one thing. The sentences I’ve read on YouTube defy logic. They remind me of the “word salad” ramblings of patients suffering with Amphetamine Psychosis. 

And before the ‘age’ card is played against me, I’m in my twenties. I know and understand slang perfectly well. This is not and has never been the issue. People who notice that literacy is becoming worse with every new generation typically blame ‘slang’ and mobile phones because they are afraid of other explanations. But this is both rong and riddickoolus yeah? The words people cannot spell are not urban phrases but the basic mechanics of language. This can only lead to a less fluffy and digestible hypothesis.

A recent article in Prospect magazine drew attention to the alarming fact that the average British IQ appears to be falling. 

“A study in 2009…. compared IQ scores obtained by British teenagers in 1980 and 2008, using the same test. The average had declined by two points on average, but by as much as six points among teenagers in the top half of the IQ scale, a fall that wiped out the previous two decades of gains in that group.”

Does this matter? It might do. Especially as we prepare to go toe-to-toe with 1.4billion Chinese with an average IQ over 100. 

But that’s a long term issue. In the short term, we must confront the idiocracy forming at the base of British society and prevent it spreading further. That’s the best we can do for now, Innit?

D, LDN.